Why atheism is against science

WooPeeA

Why atheism is against science

Well first, before you will read it, be aware of the fact that hurting atheist's feeling is not my goal here. It's just my point of view.

Well, I was thinking about atheism as believing and found that the atheism is against science at all. However, many atheists say that it's the closed "religion" to science, I would rather say that it's the farthest one. But let me explain why.


First we must understand, what the science is. Science is proving. In the eye of scientist nothing can be found real or not real until it's proved. If it cannot be proved, it's automatically rejected.



Christianity, Islam, Judaism ect..
God in the eye of most ancient and modern religions comes from their Holly books or traditions. No proofs that stories that has been written there are real. No proofs for most of them. So in the eyes of science, historically, they come more from imagination than real life.


Atheism
Atheists believes that there's no God as there's no proofs of his existence. But if you take it closer, you will find that there's also no proofs of his not existence! So how can they reject the existence of something having no proofs of not existence?


Science
So, as the recapitulation I'll give 3 kinds of believers:

1. People who believe in existence of God having no proofs for that - against science.

2. People who reject existence of God having no proofs of the fact - against science

3. People who are not sure as there's no proofs - Not against science.


In my opinion, no proofs doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. As people of religion feel free to believe in whatever you want, but as people of science never say YES or NO to something which is not proven yet.


That's just my private consideration about atheism vs. science, feel free to criticize. Hope this text haven't offend any atheist or religion believer.

robindch

WooPeeA wrote: »

Science is proving. In the eye of scientist nothing can be found real or not real until it's proved. If it cannot be proved, it's automatically rejected.

Where did you hear that? That's a completely inaccurate view of the philosophy of science.

Galvasean

WooPeeA wrote: »

Atheism
Atheists believes that there's no God as there's no proofs of his existence. But if you take it closer, you will find that there's also no proofs of his not existence! So how can they reject the existence of something having no proofs of not existence?

Your point has been made time and again. However you miss one crucial point. Science does not deal in absolute certainty. According to science you cannot prove anything one way or another completely 100% without a doubt. That's what makes it science.
If you ask most atheists they'll tell you although they can't be 100% certain that there is no God (if they otherwise they are either lying or deluding themselves), but they just find the concept to be very unlikely with the idea of their being no God is much more likely.

iUseVi

Do you reject the fact that the flying teapot exists, without fact? Of course.

Surely you wouldn't advocate spending millions of euros pointing the world's largest telescopes into space, looking for the teapot?

Because if we don't do this, we are against science. There could be a teapot.

Of course no one can be 100% sure there's no God, but we can be sure of it in the same way we can be sure there's no teapot.

Galvasean

iUseVi wrote: »

Do you reject the fact that the flying teapot exists, without fact? Of course.

Surely you wouldn't advocate spending millions of euros pointing the world's largest telescopes into space, looking for the teapot?

I wouldn't advocate spending all that money considering the extreme unlikeliness of their being a Russell's teapot. I can say with confidence that I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain said tea pot does not exist.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't advocate spending all that money considering the extreme unlikeliness of their being a Russell's teapot. I can say with confidence that I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain said tea pot does not exist.

Well yeah exactly. If WooPeeA had her/his way, we would be anti-science for not considering alternate theories involving the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

RAmen.

Zombrex

WooPeeA wrote: »

First we must understand, what the science is. Science is proving.

Well considering that isn't what science is then perhaps your first sentence is even more relievant than you imagined

In fairness I think everyone makes this assumption at first until they actually look at what science really is.

Science is not about proving. In fact science recognizes that proving something in the physical world is impossible, and this is build into the scientific method.

Science is about modeling

Science is about forming theoretical models (theories) of the world around us and then assessing the accuracy of these models through testing how accurately they match or (even better) predict observation. Through this method we can get an idea if we understand correctly (through our models) how the universe is working.

We can never know if a model is 100% accurate (or in fact gauge on a scale of 1 to 100 how accurate it is), and as such we can never "prove" something is or is not happening the way we think or believe it is based on our theories.

The issue with God and science is that God is defined in such a way that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to test any model of him, and as such science has nothing to work with. We have no method to assess if any model of him or it or them or what ever supernatural deity people wish to model, is actually in anyway accurate at representing the world around us.

As such science ignores the concepts of gods.

Rev Hellfire

WooPeeA wrote: »

Atheists believes that there's no God as there's no proofs of his existence. But if you take it closer, you will find that there's also no proofs of his not existence! So how can they reject the existence of something having no proofs of not existence?

Firstly its possibly worth stating that some of the atheists here hold atheist view to the judeo-christian concept of god. But may be agnostic to the idea of the more abstract concepts of a god(s).
Until someone can actually defines what is a god the subject remains one that can not be answered either way. Perhaps you'd care to provide a definite definition yourself.

Dades

WooPeeA wrote: »

That's just my private consideration about atheism vs. science, feel free to criticize. Hope this text haven't offend any atheist or religion believer.

We're not easily oppressed!

Following on what has been said above, the only way I could see atheism being at odds with science would be if science had provided evidence of god(s).

pH

I must say that under the sustained barrage of the "no proofers" I've had to reconsider my position that I'm 100% certain that God doesn't exist.

I now realise that I was wrong, arrogant and unscientific to hold such a position, and now am 99.(9)*% certain that God doesn't exist.

Who says us atheists aren't open and can't change our minds when presented with a valid argument?

* - notation donates that the 9 recurs indefinitely.

iUseVi

I struggle to think of any atheist friends who wouldn't say much the same thing.

So much for being arrogant then. I would be swayed by evidence. Since evidence is lacking, I am not convinced.

Fremen

Wicknight wrote: »

Science is about modeling

Well said. I think much of the confusion comes from the fact that some of the models make such amazingly accurate predictions that people confuse them with reality.

WooPeeA

robindch wrote: »

Where did you hear that? That's a completely inaccurate view of the philosophy of science.

Yeah, maybe I said it a little to far. It's not rejected but let's say, almost impossible. But yeah.. "almost impossible" doesn't mean impossible at all.

WooPeeA

Galvasean wrote: »

If you ask most atheists they'll tell you although they can't be 100% certain that there is no God (if they otherwise they are either lying or deluding themselves), but they just find the concept to be very unlikely with the idea of their being no God is much more likely.

Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

From wiki:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

raido9

WooPeeA wrote: »

Yeah, maybe I said it a little to far. It's not rejected but let's say, almost impossible. But yeah.. "almost impossible" doesn't mean impossible at all.

And that mean atheism is against science, how.... ?

robindch

pH wrote: »

I now realise that I was wrong, arrogant and unscientific to hold such a position, and now am 99.9(recurring)% certain that God doesn't exist.

I don't want to be too pedantic, but 99.9 recurring is equal to 100. Proof here

raido9

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

From wiki:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Now your being pedantic

I'll refer you to ph's post below, which I believe to be a more typical opinion of an atheist, not just a definition from wikipedia.

I must say that under the sustained barrage of the "no proofers" I've had to reconsider my position that I'm 100% certain that God doesn't exist.

I now realise that I was wrong, arrogant and unscientific to hold such a position, and now am 99.(9)*% certain that God doesn't exist.

Who says us atheists aren't open and can't change our minds when presented with a valid argument?

* - notation donates that the 9 is recurs indefinitely.

WooPeeA

iUseVi wrote: »

Do you reject the fact that the flying teapot exists, without fact? Of course.

Surely you wouldn't advocate spending millions of euros pointing the world's largest telescopes into space, looking for the teapot?

Because if we don't do this, we are against science. There could be a teapot.

Of course no one can be 100% sure there's no God, but we can be sure of it in the same way we can be sure there's no teapot.

In fact, the flying teapot will not become a fact until it won't be proved, otherwise it's still only belief. So in my opinion, you cannot be sure about its existence (or not) at all today.

raido9

robindch wrote: »

I don't want to be too pedantic, but 99.9 recurring is equal to 100. Proof here

Very interesting. I did not know that!

iUseVi

WooPeeA wrote: »

In fact, the flying teapot will not become a fact until it won't be proved, otherwise it's still only belief. So in my opinion, you cannot be sure about its existence (or not) at all today.

Not so. Are you really contending that there is a good chance that a flying teapot exists?

Say, for arguments sake that the probability of such is 0.0000001. In the strict sense of the word, is is not a fact that no teapot exists. But as it has been said numerous times before on these fora, we only have probabilities for everything, including everything you call a "fact."

There's a small chance that the electrons in my computer may move in such a way that it will an image of Jesus will spontaneously appear on my screen. This is a highly unlikely event, but you and I take it as fact that this won't happen.

WooPeeA

raido9 wrote: »

And that mean atheism is against science, how.... ?

Because atheism is about declining existence of God at all. If somebody is not certain, he's an Agnostic, not an atheist.

Maybe I'm a little pedantic, as radio9 has said but those two words are misunderstood and replaced pretty often.

In the 1st post I meant a original atheism, which decline existence of God in 100%, not uncertain atheists (agnostics).

iUseVi

WooPeeA wrote: »

Because atheism is about declining existence of God at all. If somebody is not certain, he's an Agnostic, not an atheist.

Maybe I'm a little pedantic, as radio9 has said but those two words are misunderstood and replaced pretty often.

In the 1st post I meant a original atheism, which decline existence of God in 100%, not uncertain atheists (agnostics).

Atheism declares the non-existence of currently known gods. I am 99.999% (read 100% robindch ) that the Judeo-Christian-Islam god is false.

I feel the same way about the Thor, Jesus, Zeus, etc.

You still haven't defined "god". You may be using the word in a vague and nebulous way such as God = rules of nature or something.
You can always define a god in such a way that someone would have to admit that they cannot disproof her/him/it. (This is what current religions have actually done; god is outside time and space, etc.)

Zombrex

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

I am confident to the point of certainty, that if I throw myself out of the current floor in the building I'm in I will fall downwards, and most likely to my death. This is based on everything I understand about both gravity and biology.

That is not the same thing as saying I'm certain that our understanding of gravity has been "proved" (ie 100% correct)

Our understanding of gravity has not been proven. It has been satisfactorily demonstrated to be an accurate to a level that I can confidently make and accept statements like the one above.

It has been demonstrated accurate enough for me to not throw myself out of a 3rd floor building. I cannot completely rule out not falling to my death, but if I didn't actually fall to the ground at an ever increasing speed smashing my body on the ground, I would be, lets say, surprised.

My impending death is not a scientific certainty, but then nothing is a scientific certainty. That doesn't stop me saying "If I throw myself out this window I will fall to the ground and die"

Likewise, the statement "There is no God" is not a scientific certainty. But I am satisfied that based on our current understand I can say, to a level I'm perfectly happy with, there is no God.

That doesn't make me an agnostic, any more than I'm an agnostic about falling out of buildings. Agnostics accept that God is a distinct possibility, while arguing that we cannot know either way.

It is the equivalent of someone saying "Well you may fall down, but you might also fall up, we won't know till you throw yourself out of the window"

robindch

WooPeeA wrote: »

Because atheism is about declining existence of God at all. If somebody is not certain, he's an Agnostic, not an atheist.

This topic has come up before and I don't know if it's worth rehashing the discussion again. But what the hell!

In short, there exists various degrees of atheism and agnosticism:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one is being agnostic about.

Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, christians assert that Allah is a figment of an overheated desert imagination.

.

pH

robindch wrote: »

I don't want to be too pedantic, but 99.9 recurring is equal to 100. Proof here

Oh Robin, I can't get anything past you pesky atheists can I?

WooPeeA

Wicknight, I think the example of gravity is not good for God..

You can see the gravity, not only on Earth, you can find it in most of the planets, stars and comets in the space. You can also test it anytime you want throwing a ball and see the results of gravity. So you can say that existence of gravity is pretty possible.

There's not even single proof of existence or not existence of God so it can be only based on philosophy.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

This topic has come up before and I don't know if it's worth rehashing the discussion again. But what the hell!

In short, there exists various degrees of atheism and agnosticism:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one is being agnostic about.

Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, christians assert that Allah is a figment of an overheated desert imagination.

.

Good explanation. I shall be linking to this post the next time this issue comes up. And I can bet all my money that it will come up again. <sigh>

Zombrex

WooPeeA wrote: »

You can see the gravity, not only on Earth, you can find it in most of the planets, stars and comets in the space. You can also test it anytime you want throwing a ball and see the results of gravity. So you can say that existence of gravity is pretty possible.

You are slightly missing the point with the gravity example.

You can test gravity all you like, that isn't going to "prove" that your model of gravity will still hold in 5 minutes, when you are standing at the top of your building. It doesn't "prove" that it will still work when you throw yourself off 5 seconds later either. I'm still pretty confident that you won't throw yourself off a building.

You are working on the conclusion that because your model of gravity appeared accurate 5 minutes ago it will still be accurate 5 minutes from now.

You cannot be certain of that to a very high level of accuracy. But you still aren't going to throw yourself off a building.

Just because we cannot be certain in a scientific sense, of some idea or concept doesn't mean we should be "agnostic" about it.

There are plenty of reasons to conclude God is simply an invention of human imagination, and does not reflect something real. None of these reasons can demonstrate to a very high degree of certainty that this state is true, but I'm still confident enough in them to say that God is simply an invention of human imagination and not a representation of anything real.

WooPeeA

robindch wrote: »

This topic has come up before and I don't know if it's worth rehashing the discussion again. But what the hell!

In short, there exists various degrees of atheism and agnosticism:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that deities of any kind do not exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody whom I know who falls into (4), though there are plenty of religious people who think that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one is being agnostic about.

Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, christians assert that Allah is a figment of an overheated desert imagination.

.

Thanks for that post. It's really interesting. So it's like a you can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time..

18AD

Dades wrote: »

...the only way I could see atheism being at odds with science would be if science had provided evidence of god(s).

I don't think this would necessarily be so.
I don't have to believe in the earth in order to walk on it.

Good day.
AD.

Doctor DooM

WooPeeA wrote: »

Wicknight, I think the example of gravity is not good for God..

You can see the gravity, not only on Earth, you can find it in most of the planets, stars and comets in the space. You can also test it anytime you want throwing a ball and see the results of gravity. So you can say that existence of gravity is pretty possible.

There's not even single proof of existence or not existence of God so it can be only based on philosophy.

Then why mention science at all?

Science nevers states with 100% accuracy that anything does or doesn't exist. I think you are still missing that point. That there is no "proof" either way is of no interest to science. It will do what it does with the evidence which presents itself.

Dades

WooPeeA wrote: »

In the 1st post I meant a original atheism, which decline existence of God in 100%, not uncertain atheists (agnostics).

Uncertain atheists (in your context) are not agnostics, just atheists who accept that scientifically you cannot disprove the existence of something invisible and intangible.

Practical atheists would be a more accurate description, imo.

WooPeeA

Wicknight wrote: »

You are slightly missing the point with the gravity example.

You can test gravity all you like, that isn't going to "prove" that your model of gravity will still hold in 5 minutes, when you are standing at the top of your building. It doesn't "prove" that it will still work when you throw yourself off 5 seconds later either. I'm still pretty confident that you won't throw yourself off a building.

You are working on the conclusion that because your model of gravity appeared accurate 5 minutes ago it will still be accurate 5 minutes from now.

You cannot be certain of that to a very high level of accuracy. But you still aren't going to throw yourself off a building.

Just because we cannot be certain in a scientific sense, of some idea or concept doesn't mean we should be "agnostic" about it.

Yeah, now I get the point. And agree.

There are plenty of reasons to conclude God is simply an invention of human imagination, and does not reflect something real. None of these reasons can demonstrate to a very high degree of certainty that this state is true, but I'm still confident enough in them to say that God is simply an invention of human imagination and not a representation of anything real.

Well, first we should define a God. If you mean the old guy with big beard who's living on some mountain or sky and talks to people time to time, it's probably just a human imagination..

However,
Everything in this world need some source to exist. Chicken comes from the egg, homo sapiens comes from monkeys, and the monkeys possibly were a small bacterias before they evolved. Everything must be based on something to exist. Every building has been build and every life has been born. So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source. It's probably not a person, but maybe some kind of energy or something? Very smart energy I guess.. But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

robindch

WooPeeA wrote: »

So it's like a you can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time..

In the loose sense, yes, that's possible. For example, somebody might be a strong-specific-atheist wrt Allah, while remaining agnostic about the christian deity. While their counterpart in Riyadh might be the other way around (though that's not hugely likely, as muslims believe that 'Allah' is largely the same entity as the christian god, while christians do not believe this).

BTW, all the above takes place in a concrete reality in which a deity or deities are believed or asserted to exist or not. Many believers, if not most, seem to hold indirect beliefs concerning gods, in which they assert that they "believe in" one deity or another, meaning that they assert the existence of an abstract concept of a deity, and belief in that concept, with the concrete reality of the deity or deities implied by the belief, left almost as an afterthought.

But that's an epistemological madhouse probably best left for another thread.

iUseVi

WooPeeA wrote: »

However,
Everything in this world need some source to exist. Chicken comes from the egg, homo sapiens comes from monkeys, and the monkeys possibly were a small bacterias before they evolved. Everything must be based on something to exist. Every building has been build and every life has been born. So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source. It's probably not a person, but maybe some kind of energy or something? Very smart energy I guess.. But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

First source? Why should there be such a thing? One could easily just ask the question: where did the first source come from?

This is a form of infinite regression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Anything that has the intelligence to create the universe, would presumably be very complex. So now you have to explain this complex entity. You have made things worse, not better, by introducing a "god".

WooPeeA

iUseVi wrote: »

First source? Why should there be such a thing? One could easily just ask the question: where did the first source come from?

This is a form of infinite regression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Anything that has the intelligence to create the universe, would presumably be very complex. So now you have to explain this complex entity. You have made things worse, not better, by introducing a "god".

Well that's just one of the options. Another option which I do not reject is the fact that world has never been created and it lives forever.

Both are pretty possible and impossible at the same time.

Zombrex

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well, first we should define a God.

Certainly, but that is something believers are a pains not to do, because as soon as you start tying down what "God" is actually supposed to be in any useful sense you start into the realm testability.

WooPeeA wrote: »

Very smart energy I guess..

Why?

There is absolutely no way to assess if the "first source" of the universe or the start or whatever, was or was not "smart energy", but judging by how intelligence forms in the natural world around us that would suggest it wasn't.

In the biological world intelligence evolves from non-intelligent forefathers. Our brains are formed from atoms, but atoms aren't more intelligent than our brains, in fact atoms possess no processing ability at all, let alone an intelligent one.

To me the argument that everything comes from something also implies that everything comes from something simpler than what these things combine to form.

Now this is well into the realm of philosophy, not science, and it is quite an assumption in the first place to state that everything comes from something, but if it is true then it is not very likely that the something the universe came from was complex enough to possess intelligence. Far from it, it seems more plausible, again if we follow the assumptions, that what ever this something was it was similar than even the most basic fundamental particles in the universe.

WooPeeA wrote: »

But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

I don't reject the possibility of creator. I reject the idea that human believers know what this creator was. I reject the human ideas of such a creator as simply being human fantasy.

If there was a creator, instead of simply a creation (and there is no reason to think there was, and plenty of reason to think there wasn't), I can still say with a high level of confidence, that we have absolutely no idea of that.

All the people who think they know there was a creator and what that creator was like (ie gods) don't.

iUseVi

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well that's just one of the options. Another option which I do not reject is the fact that world has never been created and it lives forever.

Both are pretty possible and impossible at the same time.

Agreed, there are other options. Another one could be that this is a cyclical universe that had a beginning and that was created by a deist-like god many cycles ago. Another one is that it was created by a giant purple bunny. :eek:

If for all intents and purposes there looks to be no gods, I think it is safe to assume there isn't. If there is, it/she/he is so distant that it/she/he isn't going to be interested in some mere molecule formations.

Dades

WooPeeA wrote: »

So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source.

Here's a suggestion: don't use it.

If we have no concept of what it is, it's perfectly acceptable to not sully it with a human term that implies so much more.

WooPeeA

Wicknight wrote: »

There is absolutely no way to assess if the "first source" of the universe or the start or whatever, was or was not "smart energy", but judging by how intelligence forms in the natural world around us that would suggest it wasn't.

The Universe (nature) is able to create new periodic systems. Here on Earth, we know about 110-120 of them (you can find them on Mendeleev Table of Elements) as I remember, but we know that there must be more of them somewhere in Universe. That's why the Universe is getting more complicated all the time. It's getting also bigger (by explosions of galactics and stars) which makes even more chances for creation of new periodic elements. That's what many of scientists are saying.

Most popular periodics in our part of Universe are helium (He), hydrogen (H) and iron (Fe) [I might be a little wrong here] . That might suggest that they are first periodics which are the foundation for others in the long term. That's only a theory of course.

If we back the time billions of billions of years, when the Universe was not that complicated as today, when there was no planets, stars, galactics etc.. One of theories is saying that there was only one periodic element that has began everything.


The other theory is saying that it all began by Big Bang because the Universe looks like the chemical and physical reaction after large explosion. But that's of course another theory.

What I mean is that world is getting more complicated, and if it's getting more complicated, in the past that was less complicated. And that may suggest the "First source" theory.

CerebralCortex

WTF is a galactic?

iUseVi

CerebralCortex wrote: »

WTF is a galactic?

WTF is a periodic?!

Dave!

WTF is YORE MA?!

Zombrex

WooPeeA wrote: »

Most popular periodics in our part of Universe are helium (He), hydrogen (H) and iron (Fe) [I might be a little wrong here] . That might suggest that they are first periodics which are the foundation for others in the long term. That's only a theory of course.

It is actually hydrogen then helium, and iron is the 6th most common atom in the universe. Oxygen is 3rd.

As you say, it is a well established and supported theory that hydrogen was the first atom, and that other atoms formed through heat causing nuclear fusion, either during the heat of the big bang or inside stars, which are basically big factories converting hydrogen into helium.

WooPeeA wrote: »

What I mean is that world is getting more complicated, and if it's getting more complicated, in the past that was less complicated. And that may suggest the "First source" theory.

It does, and the first source theory is the Big Bang theory, which is strongly supported by observation.

My point is that there is little reason to suspect that this event was either some how intelligent itself, or triggered by some intelligence.

Mark Hamill

WooPeeA wrote: »

But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

That type of thinking, however, is against science. Remember that science is about models, and that any "theory" is just a model, essentially its just people taking in any available evidence and making assumptions about how things work. If these assumptions work with all the available evidence, and can keep working with any new evidence that comes to light, then the model is accepted. But if some new piece of evidence comes up that does not fit with the model, then the model needs to be changed to fit with the evidence and if it can't adapt then it needs to be discarded and a new model that acounts for all evidence needs to be made. Some old models (eg "the sun revolves around the earth") have to be rejected when evidence arises that shows them to be wrong.

Galvasean

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

From wiki:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Now you're just splitting hairs.
By taht logic I'm a super-agnostic. The slightest breeze could transform me into a full blown atheist! :eek:

Akrasia

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't advocate spending all that money considering the extreme unlikeliness of their being a Russell's teapot. I can say with confidence that I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain said tea pot does not exist.

If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me. (the fact that nobody's done it yet is proof that astronoughts/cosmonaughts don't have a sense of humour)

Akrasia

WooPeeA wrote: »

Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

From wiki:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

Your very own definition of atheism disproves your argument.

One can reject theism without being absolutely certain that there is no such thing as a god just like you can reject astrology or homeopathy without 100% proof that they are false beliefs.

I reject christianity because I see too many gaping holes in the logic and traditions. I reject Astrology because I don't see how arbitrary celestial movements can have any effect on whether or not I am compatable with my girlfriend or if I win the lottery. I reject homeopathy because there is nothing in those bottles but water.

I do not know with absolute 100% certainty that I am right and they are wrong, but I can reject them anyway because they don't meet the standards that I have set for myself to believe.

Dades

Akrasia wrote: »

If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me.

Ye gods - don't do that!

Given the arguments against the likelihood of there existing such a celestial vessel; by placing a teapot in orbit you would instantly prove the existence of God!

Galvasean

TBH I find the likelihood of an astronaut having doe such a thing without letting the world know about it much more likely than God being real.
I'm fairly certain it didn't happen too.

WooPeeA

Akrasia wrote: »

If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me. (the fact that nobody's done it yet is proof that astronoughts/cosmonaughts don't have a sense of humour)

It may happen sooner than you think..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

:cool: